Obama Abroad

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/21/2008 3:04:35 AM

    So which is the real Obama?
    Obama: "There???s not much difference between my position and George Bush???s position at this stage. The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster. It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."
    Obama: "Look, I opposed this war from the start. We have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year."

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/21/2008 3:06:19 AM

      Obama: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us???.You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

      Obama: "I???ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel???s existence."

  • Posted By: Tom_G @ 07/20/2008 1:50:03 PM

    Dude Obama praises H.W. Bush to try and under cut the republicans, wake up... In fact after reading your article, I think you are naïve. Also how do you know McCain is a pessimist? You write that but there is not way you can know that. In short that is not admissible in a court of law nor could anyone who really wants to make an informed decision consider hearsay like that to be of any value.

    If you really want to look at something think about this. North Korea - nuclear weapons program being shut down, Insane Iraqi Dictator responsible for the deaths of 1m+ people removed from power and growing international pressure on crazy theocracy to stop them from developing Nuclear weapons. How did all that get done?

    Those are things that actually happened not worthless words. You should focus on results more. Results are cool and they actually provide a way to make decisions and form opinions based on things that are real.

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 07/20/2008 2:04:56 PM

      Saddam never killed a million people sir. He was a very tyrannical leader, but his level of genocide was no where near your exagerated figure.

      • Posted By: mistermcfrugal @ 07/20/2008 2:57:29 PM

        I'll argue with that assertion! Who knows how many people died as a result of the Iran-Iraq, and the Kuwait War (first Persian Gulf War) that were both started by Saddam. I think the number of dead far exceeded a million. You owe the guy an apology!

        • Posted By: peartreehill @ 07/20/2008 6:58:38 PM

          Saddam killed millions of Iranians in a war the US cheered on and supported. It was not one of the United State's finest times. Most Americans do not understand why Iranians feel so strong about self-defense and so much anger toward our country. How do you think Americans would feel if we had been invaded by a neighbor who was goaded on and supported by a far away Superpower and had had millions of our people killed?

          This is not to say that Iran is NOT a terrorist nation in important ways and should not be treated warily. But, get your facts right and learn some history. Knowledge is power.

          • Posted By: ginamlaster @ 07/21/2008 2:55:58 AM

            Absolutely! Knowledge is power and I fault the media for not doing a better job about clarifying the relationship between Iran & Iraq, and how the U.S. has kept them at each other's throats for so many years. People don't hate America because of our freedoms. They hate us because of the shameful way many of our elected officials have brought pain and death to their loved ones while using the media to keep us oblivious to what was going on. Yes, Iran has a lot of problems. But we used Saddam for years to keep them in check. Then, after all those years of bankrolling him, when we needed a war for profit we turned against Saddam and used him as a scapegoat, accusing him of having weapons of mass destruction that we knew he had because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM!!!

            That's why people fly planes into our buildings. We sit here innocently wondering what would make someone do such a horrible thing, not realizing that the people we voted into power have been using our tax dollars to screw these folks over, and they're about sick of it. That's what makes this election cycle so important. We have an opportunity to vote the war criminals out of office and finally get some responsible leadership in place that will mend fences, end the bullying and make peace so we can get our economy going again. Since we're bankrolling what they do, we need to demand strict accountability for their actions, since as of 9-11, we've started to pay the consequences for their actions with the blood of our citizens.

        • Posted By: mrzoid @ 07/20/2008 4:51:56 PM

          First, one could throw out hypothetical figures all day, that in no way makes them legitimate. Second, I do not believe that the Iran-Iraq conflict which we financially backed for Saddam can be turned into an attack against him; nice attempt to rewrite history though. Perhaps we should tag all of those dead russians on the Taliban or Osama huh?

    • Posted By: yvoennsche @ 07/20/2008 2:10:38 PM

      Well, Dude, North Korea is shutting down their nuclear program as a consequence of direct talks and diplomacy, which the Bush administration has opposed for the longest time. Now that they tried it, it actually worked. Now they are starting to talk to Iran. Guess there is a difference between diplomacy and appeasement. Somebody should tell McCain.

      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 07/20/2008 2:20:30 PM

        Yes, what a novel approach; talk to your enemies to resolve things. Who would have thought!!?

        • Posted By: al.r.sita @ 07/20/2008 2:44:03 PM

          Tom, in information age, USA will have to pay heavy price (depression, oil price) for playing bully. You call this article naive, can you tell difference between Wilson and Bush foregn policy? People like you become foreign policy exper by listening to talk shows. Who is Naive?

    • Posted By: chindognyc @ 07/20/2008 1:55:15 PM

      What are you ranting about. None of these countries even wanted the U.S. in the talks. Because now that the White House is following Obama's lead, things are starting to get taken care of.

  • Posted By: Medge @ 07/20/2008 3:59:55 PM

    I believe Barack Obama is an idiealist, but not in the strict philosophical definition of idealism which holds that material objects do not exist independently of the mind. I don't think he is an impractical person much less a naive idealist. He is much too smart, to be naive. Idialistic naivete are labels useds by gthe political opposition intended to discredit him. They are applying the idealistic concept to him in a peyorative sense, to create a negative image in the American voter.
    He is an idealist with high ideals who abides by high standards and principles, which is the correct definition of his idealism, because he is a true American patriot wno hohestly wants to take America in a new directon. Unlike McCain he is focused in a future of unity among the American voter, in order to do away with the division and manipulation of the Bush administration. In order to restore the economy, end the war in Iraq, and rescue the Constitution from being completely wiped out, he has to adopt a philosophy with ethical principles. Since the opposition has adopted
    an unethical and corrupt philosophy designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the American taxpayer, Obama has to be firm in his "liberal" political philosophy--another political concept used derogatively against him.

    So, he is not a naive idealist. He is a practical patriot who sincerely wants to take America in the right direction. I think the Americn voter is ready for this change and that's why he will become the next president of the United States come November. McCain belongs to the world of lobbyists and special interests, who want to continue lining their pockets at the expense ot the American people. McCain wants to be elected to continue Bush's third term.

    • Posted By: josemarti @ 07/20/2008 6:07:37 PM

      He is "focused in a future of unity among the American voter." He is "an American patriot." He "abides by high standards and principles." Very interesting. Say more.

      • Posted By: ginamlaster @ 07/21/2008 2:36:38 AM

        ...and Jose Marti would definitely know about patriotism. Que viva la raza!

  • Posted By: ebony @ 07/21/2008 2:25:29 AM

    Very good article! I like that Obama takes a broad view of things! He does not have tunnel vision! He feel he wants to work with people of all kinds and come to a reasonable compromise so we can coexist in peace! Obama would be great for this country! I pray that the American people will wake up and realize that! If McCain get's in office, we will be doomed!

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 07/21/2008 2:36:28 AM

      Doomed? Enough already! While I agree, Obama will probably be a more effective president, McCain is not some kind of a monster. He has foresaken all of his independent thinking, but Obama is shifting his stances to allign with the voting majority as well. I dont know why it is so integral to dehumanize the people on the other side of the aisle becuse they have a (R) or (D) next to their name. We all have to live together, and its not some kind of bad MTV reality show where conflict with those who disagreeing with those whose views differ from yours wins you a prize.

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/20/2008 4:23:31 PM


    PRO-HILLARY website launched. Anyone who would like to sign the pledge (reiterated below and on the site), here is the link to the site: http://www.together4us.com/

    REMEMBER THIS MEDIA BLITZ AGAINST HILLARY NON STOP? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

    THE BYLAWS COMMITTE VOTE UNFAIRLY IN THE EYES OF MANY!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1whezcwSrQE


    ALL the more to sign the pledge (repeated below) on this webiste www.together4us.com

    THE PLEDGE OF TOGETHERNESS: SPREAD THE WORD!

    We stand together with her 18 million voters in pursuit of all of the following:

    Bring us together by honoring Hillary Clinton and her supporters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver by:

    Placing her name into nomination (following traditional protocol)

    Ensuring a roll-call vote

    Inviting her to speak, during prime-time, on August 26th, the 88th anniversary of Women's Suffrage

    Bring us together by adoption of policies on the Platform Committee that Hillary Clinton has championed.

    Bring us together through reform of the primary and caucus system to reflect the basic principle of one person - one vote.

    Bring us together through outspoken denunciation of all gender bias, racism and other forms of discrimination.

    Bring us together by making a concerted effort to retire her campaign debt.

    We are being asked to embrace Party Unity without the fair representation of Hillary Clinton and her 18 million voters. Party Unity requires bilateral action. We ask Barack Obama and the DNC to respond.


    • Posted By: ginamlaster @ 07/21/2008 2:29:04 AM

      Before you jump into your plans to ruin the Democratic National Convention for the rest of us, each one of you 18 million pseudo-Democrats should get together NOW and cough up $5 bucks apiece before you do ANYTHING else, including wasting money on Hillary bitch rallies and trying to overturn a fair election. Just because your candidate didn't win doesn't mean it wasn't a fair election. The DNC is NOT about to overturn it because you say so. But if you really care about Hillary, stop waiting on everyone else to bail her out. Send money now!!!

      I know you think you're on some kind of crusade, asking her to speak here and speak there. But if I'm Hillary, do you honestly think I give two craps about you, feminism, gender bias or racism when I'm about to lose my $10M dollars? Hell no! With that kind of money about to disappear, even you wouldn't care about speaking to a room full of disgruntled hags who DIDN'T win you the nomination unless that speech came with a $10M dollar honorarium. So move that money goal of yours to the top of your list before any and all other considerations, and for God's sake, forget this humiliating beg-fest you're planning for her in Denver. She knows she's lost the presidency (even if you don't). The campaign has long since moved on without her. All she cares about now is rescuing her $10M dollars.

      It sucks that she's stuck with 18 million cheapskates. Have your pity party in Denver if you must. But if you let her go under while you're doing it, you'll be the laughing stock of this whole election. I can forgive Hillary for wanting the presidency so bad that she made some stupid financial decisions. But if after all this whining you PUMAs let her drown because her Obama wouldn't pay her bills, you're going to prove to the world what I already know...that you never really gave a damn about Hillary. You just cared about the fantasy of Hillary and of having a woman in office. The real person holding $30M in campaign debt is not your problem.

      Part of me hopes you will let her go under, a) because she still has plenty of money in the bank to pay her debts so I don't feel sorry for her, and b) because I can't wait to laugh at all of you. While you'll happily help her embarrass herself at the convention by going hat in hand to the DNC and begging for Obama's nomination, you only pay lip service to giving her the only help she really, truly needs. Don't make her grovel to the DNC for a cause even you wouldn't care about if you had the debt she's carrying. She could care less about the convention right now. With $10M about to go up in smoke, and $20M more still owed to creditors, I can assure you that no matter what she might say, she's lost ALL desire to fight your fight in Denver. Right now that money is the only thing on her mind. So give the woman her money and let her ride off into the sunset.

    • Posted By: cindaa @ 07/20/2008 6:11:32 PM

      Give it a rest. She lost.

    • Posted By: lee226 @ 07/20/2008 6:29:38 PM

      Maybe Hillary should decide if things should be has you expect.
      If you 18 mllion signature you have enough to raise the cash, 50 a piece.

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/21/2008 1:45:32 AM

    First in a series of Posts to Educate people about Obamas FRIENDS


    OBAMAs Relationships Stemming from his Directorship of the Woods

    * Obamas Problematic Directorship at Woods Fund with WILLIAM AYERS

    Barack Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Funds website.

    While the Chicago Sun Times provides a laundry list of Obamas problematic relationships (Rezko, Farrakhan, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Austan Goolsbee list goes on), none may prove more ultimately controversial than fellow Woods Fund Directors William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

    As others have mentioned, WILLIAM AYERS and BERNADINE DOHRN were once notorious members of the Weather Underground, TERRORIST BOMBERS who attempted to overthrow the United State Government.

    William Ayers, quoted on Sept. 11, 2001: Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.

    [Ayers and Dohrn] disappeared in 1970, after a bomb, designed to kill army officers in New Jersey, accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance.

    I DO NOT REGRET SETTING BOMBS. I feel we did not do enough,??? AYERS TOLD the New York Times in 2001.

    Ayers was a terrorist. His wife Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. Ayers has never offered one word of apology. He glories in it, thinks it is terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior, said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now Dean of George Mason University Law School. If Obama takes a different view on that - well, OK, that is data about Obama.

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/20/2008 8:17:41 PM



    NBC News
    THE SURGE SUCCEEDS: McCain was Right! Obama was Dead Wrong
    Chris Matthews
    MAY 30, 2008

    CHRIS MATTHEWS QUESTION TO DAVID AXLEROD, OBAMAS CHIEF STRATEGIST
    Do you know . . . , do you know whether Senator Obama, given his position in the Senate, uh, on the FOREIGN RELATIONS Committee, do you know whether he thinks there has been progress made in Iraq . . because anecdotal evidence would tell you people returning, soldiers returning from Iraq, people, non-governmental people who have been in Iraq come back and say there actually has been progress made within the last year. Do you know what he (OBAMA) thinks about that?

    AXLERODS ANSWER (MAY 30, 2008)
    I think what he, what he said was, that theres been, uh, uh, the . . . I mean, he never disputed (? ? ?) the fact that if, that if you throw, uh, uh, a, a, a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can , uh, make a difference.

    OBAMA . ..REGARDING THE SURGE (JAN. 14, 2007)
    We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a Civil war, and until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, uh, I dont know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I have spoken to, uh, privately, that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.


    THE REAL DEAL: McCain was RIGHT. Obama was DEAD WRONG.

    Just imagine where we would be with the War in Iraq if Barack Obama was President?!


    ABOVE INTERVIEW ON VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4vlBgh7KLg


    • Posted By: babelfisher14 @ 07/21/2008 1:30:22 AM

      The mythology of the surge ignores that what's really happened to reduce violence in Iraq is the "success" of ethnic and sectarian cleansing. Most parts of Iraq are now 100% Shiite, 100% Sunni, or 100% Kurdish. With the factions being so thoroughly segregated from each other, there's less opportunity for sectarian killings.

  • Posted By: Jim F. @ 07/20/2008 9:03:47 PM

    It is quite clear that Obama was against the surge while McCain was pushing for it. The surge was undoubtedly a very significant success on all fronts. It was obviously a miltary succcess and, even more importantly, it was a diplomatic success because the US stood by the Iraqis and we kept our commitments. This type of leadership demands respect by the world.

    If it was up to Obama, we would have been a failure militarily and diplomatically. He was against the surge and he would have pulled US troops out leaving the Iraqis to fend off Al Qaeda and Iran-sponsored insurgents.

    Obama is dangerous for America.

    • Posted By: babelfisher14 @ 07/21/2008 1:21:34 AM

      If the Iraqis have to fend for themselves, so what? The American President should consider his first duty to be to Americans, not Iraqis.

  • Posted By: michaelp0429 @ 07/20/2008 9:29:31 PM

    Obama's positions today are reasonable. On issue after issue his first answers given a year ago were absurdly naive and dangerous. On issue after issue as he's brought in more competent advisors to correct his dangerous notions, he has come up with the very possitoins he once attacked his rivals for. He's no longer for sitting down unconditionally with our worst enemies in his first year in office. He is no longer for bringing our troups home from Iraq immediately. The good news? Given a year to change his position multiple times based on the lastest poll and his latest new advisors and the fact that his opposition's position is more popular, Obama eventually gets it right. The BAD news? As President Obama won't have a year to wait for polling concensus and the oppostion to correct his horribly judgement.

    • Posted By: babelfisher14 @ 07/21/2008 1:20:03 AM

      Since when has Obama changed those positions? He still plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, and was never going to do so "immediately" because that's a physical impossibility. It takes time to move that many people. He plans to START the withdrawal immediately, but it'll take quite some time to complete it. Anyone who expected he'd be able to get all the troops home on his first day in office has no concept of logistics.

      I also don't see how those positions are naive at all, let alone dangerous. NOT negotiating with potential enemies is what's dangerous, you just have to look at Bush's term in office for proof of that.

  • Posted By: jm1673 @ 07/20/2008 9:48:18 PM

    Obama is all fluff. It's ALL about staging. 'Make you feel good' speeches instead of talking about his views on the topics. Why? Because his far-left ideals are very risky in a General Election.

    http://www.hellnobama.com

    • Posted By: babelfisher14 @ 07/21/2008 1:14:28 AM

      What far-left ideals would that be?

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/20/2008 11:31:32 PM

      I totally agree.

      Quote by Don Juan (Carlos Castaneda)

      There is a flaw with words, they always force us to feel enlightened, but when we turn around to face the world they always fail us and we end up facing the world as we always have, without enlightenment

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 07/21/2008 1:13:58 AM

    The British Prime Mnister and the Bush Administration, are looking at 2008-2009 Withdrawals, Research it.

    Obama was Right, they are now Beating Obama's Timeline of 16-18 Months, to Withdraw.


    Bush calls it a "Time Horizon" and Obama calls it a "Time Line or Time Frame" its the Same Damn Thing, just a Change of Words... A Designated Timeline to Pull Out of BagDad...Simple.

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have agreed to set a "Time Horizon" for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq, despite Bush's long opposition to deadlines for TROOP WITHDRAWAL.

    In the closest the Bush administration has come to acknowledging the need for a TIME FRAME for U.S. troop cuts, the White House said on Friday that U.S. and Iraqi negotiators would seek "Aspirational Goals" for withdrawals.

    Bush, an unpopular president waging an unpopular war in the twilight of his tenure, has adamantly opposed setting a schedule for scaling back U.S. forces, even as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed, if elected, to withdraw troops in 16 months.

    Playing down the notion it had changed its policy, the White House insisted Bush and Maliki, in a secure videoconference on Thursday, agreed troop cuts would be "based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal."

    U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have been working in fits and starts on a formal Status of Forces Agreement to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when an U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

    Maliki, expressing his government's growing confidence as violence has decreased, last week raised the prospect of setting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal. But U.S. officials have been more cautious.

    The White House said Bush and Maliki aimed to complete a deal by the end of the month.

    "The president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the White House said.

  • Posted By: Achilles22 @ 07/21/2008 12:29:04 AM


    God forbid that anyone believe this man is a pragmatic student of history -

    Very good piece

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 07/21/2008 12:07:55 AM

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/22/odierno-mccain-100/

    Gen. Raymond Odierno will take over the Iraq Occupation after General Patraeus...fact

    He told Jim Webb that the US Would Not stay in Iraq Indifinitely.

    This War took enough Lives 1 Million Innocent Iraqi Citizens & Over 4,096 Honorable US Military Men & Women's Lives, Killed under false Pretenses, to get to this point and its still a Touch and Go situation.

    McCain is Wrong, We will NOT stay in Iraq, even if it takes 100 Yrs or More, Iraq is NOT Germany, Japan or Korea and we will Withdraw from Iraq as we are doing Presently, so that Dispells McCain's USA Indifinite Stay in Iraq ...

    Odierno responded that the end point would be when Iraq has a ???self-reliant government, a professionalized security force, and major political reconciliation. Webb asked what the U.S. presence should be if those conditions are met:

    WEBB: Well, what what is the end point of the United States involvement in Iraq? Lets say that Iraq meets the conditions you just talked about. Should there be a United States military presence in Iraq?

    ODIERNO: I think that???s a discussion we would have along several levels. Not only from the MNF-I command or the Central Command level and obviously our civilian leadership to decide what their policy would be in the future toward Iraq.

    WEBB: Do you believe that if those conditions are met, there would be a need for the United States military in Iraq?

    ODIERNO: I do not. I believe what we would want, though, is to maintain obviously military contacts as we do with many countries over the world.

    Watch it:




    Odiernos statement pours cold water on Sen. John McCains (R-AZ) infamous claim that the U.S. should maintain a presence in Iraq, for as much as 100 or 10,000 years. Fine with me,

    McCain says,as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.

    But as Odierno said today, in the case that those conditions are met (a big if, as Max Bergmann notes), the U.S. military does not need to keep troops in the country.

    Thats a very important clarification, Webb concluded.

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 07/20/2008 11:54:10 PM

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/22/odierno-mccain-100/

    McCain is Wrong, We will NOT stay in Iraq, even if it takes 100 Yrs or More, Iraq is NOT Germany, Japan or Korea and we will Withdraw from Iraq as we are doing Presently, so that Dispells McCain's USA Indifinite Stay in Iraq ...

    Odierno Rejects McCain???s ???100 Years???: No ???Need??? For Permanent Military Presence In Iraq»
    In today???s confirmation hearing, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) asked Gen. Raymond Odierno what the ???end point??? of U.S. military involvement in Iraq would be. ???In military terms, what do you see as the end point in our strategic direction here with respect to our involvement in Iraq???? Webb asked.

    Odierno responded that the ???end point??? would be when Iraq has a ???self-reliant government,??? a ???professionalized security??? force, and major political reconciliation. Webb asked what the U.S. presence should be if those conditions are met:

    WEBB: Well, what ??? what is the end point of the United States??? involvement in Iraq? Let???s say that Iraq meets the conditions you just talked about. Should there be a United States military presence in Iraq?

    ODIERNO: I think that???s a discussion we would have along several levels. Not only from the MNF-I command or the Central Command level and obviously our civilian leadership to decide what their policy would be in the future toward Iraq.

    WEBB: Do you believe that if those conditions are met, there would be a need for the United States military in Iraq?

    ODIERNO: I do not. I believe what we would want, though, is to maintain obviously military contacts as we do with many countries over the world.

    Watch it:




    Odierno???s statement pours cold water on Sen. John McCain???s (R-AZ) infamous claim that the U.S. should ???maintain a presence??? in Iraq, for as much as 100 or 10,000 years. ???Fine with me,??? McCain says, ???as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.???

    But as Odierno said today, in the case that those conditions are met (a ???big if,??? as Max Bergmann notes), the U.S. military does not ???need??? to keep troops in the country. ???That???s a very important clarification,??? Webb concluded.

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 07/20/2008 10:02:21 PM

    Mccain visits Iraq, Britain, Canada, Columbia & Mexico

    Yet Obama is not to Travel the World and make himself known ?


    John Mccain is Worried about the Big World Wide Reception Obama is going to Recieve.

    When McCain visited these Nations, it was Ho Hum, the Old Man is here.....

    With Obama, it will be a Huge Reception and Mccain, can't Stand it !!!!


    Out with the Old and in with the..... NEW !!!!

    Mccain is... Jealous and Beside himself with ENVY and he should be, but he should'nt make it, so OBVIOUS !!!

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/20/2008 11:35:53 PM

      Quote by Don Juan (Carlos Castaneda)

      There is a flaw with words, they always force us to feel enlightened, but when we turn around to face the world they always fail us and we end up facing the world as we always have, without enlightenment

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/20/2008 11:34:32 PM


    Quote by Don Juan (Carlos Castaneda)

    There is a flaw with words, they always force us to feel enlightened, but when we turn around to face the world they always fail us and we end up facing the world as we always have, without enlightenment.

  • Posted By: josemarti @ 07/20/2008 11:29:13 PM

    How does Obama view the world? Let's think about that one. The way one would expect a conflicted son of an American leftist (later married to an Indonesian Muslim), and an irresponsible Kenyan (father of countless children through several wives), who was educated at an elite high school in Hawaii, Columbia University, Harvard Law School, who admires Malcolm X, Franz Fanon, and who spent 20 years soaking in the poison of Reverend Wright, would view the world.

  • Posted By: burrisej007 @ 07/20/2008 11:28:40 PM

    It is amazing how blantly Pro Obama Newsweek is and try to pass as obejectively reporting the news......Fareed has ben pro Demorcrat for a very long time. Just because your name has foreign orgins by no means make you a foreign policy expert.

    Please for the sake of your career try not to pass yourself as anything but a pro Democrat anti American writter.

    This is the last time I read Newsweek. Very sad.

  • Posted By: joe1022joe @ 07/20/2008 11:21:21 PM

    Fareed Zakaria lauds Barak Hussein Obama. What country are we talking about?

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 07/20/2008 9:36:55 PM

    Share News: Sorry Israel has 150-200 Nuclerar Missiles and this was Without Approval...

    Israel is in No Harm of being Attacked by Iran, it is the other way Around for All others in that Region and Beyond that are in Fear of Israel.

    Joe "Lie Every Which way But Loose" Lieberman has tried to Fear Monger, to America, that Iran is a Nuclear Threat !!!

    If I have AK 47's and Mac 10's and My Enemy has 38's and 347's,

    I don't Fear My Enemy, My Enemey Fears.... ME !!!

    Iran should Defend themselves against any Country, that could Wipe them Out, as well as the Entire Region and Beyond !!!

    Israel Does Not want Anyother Nation in that Region, to Defend Itself...

    They want to Overlord this Region, without Bounds and that will Lead Us into (World War 3)

    Because the Russians and Chinese are Not going to accept this Strong Arming by 2 Nations over Other Nations anymore....

    That August, 27, 07 Joint War Excercise with Russia & China was a Clear Message, that We are Not the Only "Super Power"


    Who do you think Supplies the World with Gas and Oil as well (Russia) of course. We Depend on Russia and Money Wise, we Owe China, Big Time !!!


    Putin & Medvedev are sending a Loud Clear Messages as well as China, that We Need to Stop Thinking we're The Global Police and to Handle our Own House and leave Other Nations Alone.


    China & Russia have a Large Number of Nuclear missiles and Russia has the Largest Stockpile of them All !!!

    The Greatest Threats to America are Not Iran, it is ....

    Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and America, in that Order.

    Remember the U.S. Military Plane Carrying Live Nuclear War Heads, this was not the 1st Time, this happened, it is the 1st Time, it was Reported to the US People.


    If Israel wants to Wipe Out a Nation and then some, let them do it, but let Not the USA Particpate in their Mass Murder Quest and make World War 3 a Reality.

    We've helped them out, long Enough, 60 Years, let Israel have at it, let the Iranian Blood, be on their Hands, not the USA's...

    We will Looked upon Worse than Adolph Hitler, Mussolini, Karl Marx or Stalin.

    Let Israel be Tagged to the World as Mass Murderers, in the name of God.

    They have not laid down their Flesh, Blood, Bone & Spirit in Iraq & Afghanistan, let them have at it.

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/20/2008 11:04:42 PM

      ANSWER:

      It is Iran???s APOCALYPTIC world view that distinguishes their likelihood to use a nuclear bomb than other governments (US, Israel,etc.) with nuclear weapons capability. See article excerpt below I obtained from a couple sections on this site:
      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Iran.html#threats

      Threats Against Israel and America
      The only way to confront the Zionist enemy is the continuation and fortification of resistance and Jihad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quoted as saying September 3, 2005, in a meeting with the militant group Islamic Jihad's secretary general Ramazan Abdullah (AFP, September 3, 2005).

      In October 2005, recently elected PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD QUOTED AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI AND DECLARED: AS THE IMAM SAID, ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP.

      The president added: And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism (AP, October 26, 2005).
      President Bush said February 16, 2005 Iran has made it clear that they do not like Israel, to put it bluntly. And the Israelis are concerned about whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon, as are we, as should everybody. Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel, and I listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded my security of my country, I would be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon, as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we have made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if their security is threatened.

      Iran's non-conventional weapons are not a threat only toward Israel, they also pose a danger to the United States and its interests around the world. And the American people recognize this danger. According to a January 2006 Gallup poll, 19% of Americans see Iran as an immediate threat to the United States and another 65% said Iran is a long-term threat.

      On June 15, 2006, Iran???s defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, signed an agreement with his Syrian counterpart, Hassan Turkmani, for military cooperation against what they called the ???COMMON THREATS??? presented by Israel and the United States. Our cooperation is based on a strategic pact and unity against common threats, said Turkmani. We can have a common front against Israel???s threats.

      (Continued below)

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/20/2008 11:02:14 PM

      Would Iran Use the Bomb?

      Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes the most important task of the Iranian Revolution was to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who disappeared in 874, bringing an end to Muhammad???s lineage. This imam, the Mahdi or DIVINELY GUIDED ONE, Shiites believe, will return in an APOCALYPTIC BATTLE in which the forces of righteousness will DEFEAT THE FORCES OF EVIL and bring about a new era in which Islam ultimately becomes the dominant religion throughout the world. The Shiites have been waiting patiently for the Twelfth Imam for more than a 1,000 years, but Ahmadinejad believes he can now HASTEN THE RETURN THROUGH A NUCLEAR WAR. Ayatollah Hussein Nuri Hamdani explicitly said in 2005 that THE JEWS should be fought against and forced to surrender to prepare the way for the coming of the Hidden Imam.

      It is this APOCALYPTIC world view, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis notes, that distinguishes Iran from other governments .

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse